why Kerry is going to lose

[darkhorse]

Quote from Error 404:


"Liberals have such a lousy sense of humor"? Pretty broad generalization Dark....pretty surprised to hear this from you. All those stuffy "liberal" entertainers who just can't get a laugh if their lives depended on it. George Carlin, Larry David, Mel Brooks, and Jon Stewart aren't half as funny as Anne Coulter

Good point RS, I just got schooled... and retract my statement.

 

[darkhorse]

Quote from Turok:


ROFLAO!!!!!!!!!!

Of course it doesn't fly with you. My point exactly.

JB

Schooled again!

You're right, humor is a subjective thing and my blanket statement was unfounded.

I officially resign my post as political agitator.

Oh well... I've been told it's time to pursue a little less conversation and a lot more action anyway.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from darkhorse:

No, actually I'm very concerned. Things are working in Bush's favor for the near term, not the longer term. If everything goes to hell in December, that won't be any help for the democrats, and it's possible that Greenspan can keep the party going for another six months (if not longer) before things start to deteriorate. Economic shifts are like aircraft carriers; shock events aside, they are big and slow and take time to change course.

I agree with you on the nature of changes to the US economy, but I don't see things going in Bush's favor in the near term. Remember - we're dipping into negative territory (YTD) on the major indices; and Bush does care a lot about the stock market.

Who's dreaming? All I said was the odds are in Bush's favor, and they are.
If Iraq gets better and the economy gets hotter, Bush is a lock. If Iraq merely stabilizes and the economy treads water, Bush still has the edge because of the terrorist premium and the "finish what we started" mentality of many Americans.
Last but not least, Kerry has not been able to get ahead of Bush even with all the bad news that has hit the white house - a sign of serious disconnect. So again, it's an odds thing. Bush still has an overall edge from here, though only a modest one, based on potential trends for the next six months. What happens in 2005 is another question entirely.

Actually, I was quoting the following: "whether the public thinks we are winning", "administration went through hell with abu ghraib and fallujah", "if the handoff is successful", "there is a renewed focus on Iraqi success stories in coming months", "picture could be entirely different this fall", "If the quagmire concern turns out to have peaked in May" and "could be a forgotten issue by the time the election comes around."

I would just repeat : keep - on - dreaming ...
There are so many premises and they're so far out that I will rigorously stick to my statement that you can't be meaning this seriously. Nothing personal, it's just taking logic and sense of reality into count.

Of course, most of us who're not there (in Iraq) want the Iraq-war ended quickly, and in an orderly and successful manner for all parties tragically involved.

Also, on the matter where you misread my quote and answered: "All I said was the odds are in Bush's favor, and they are." - which actually was not all that you had said, but on a recent CNN/USA Today poll Kerry was ahead with around 3% (46-49 or something), but I might be going blind on my old days here.

Also: "Bush's approval ratings have slipped to the mid-to-low 40 percent range. No recent president has been re-elected with such numbers so close to the November elections: 'There isn't panic, but there is considerable concern,' one senior aide said."
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=516680&section=news

That's a matter of opinion many would disagree on - some would see a democrat in the white house as an invitation for increased terrorist threats. A mongrel dog is more likely to attack a weak opponent than a strong one.
If I were a bookie I would still be giving Bush the spread right now, nothing to do w/ my political opinions.

I support the allegory of terrorists as mongrel dogs, but I think that the M-11 (Madrid March 11th) train bombing shows us - along with the 9/11 of 2001 in NYC that the terrorists answer tougher politics with some tougher actions of themselves.

Before we get into the whole appeasement-spiral here (which has been discussed extensively before), it's just a statements of facts - contradicting your assumption.

So, I'll stick with my "Bush is a liability and menace to the US"-opinion for now. Actually, I think Bush and his government is a menace to the whole world and it's future.

If one remembers the latest parliamentary elections in europe before the Iraq war - the shift of political support into more political right was something that was commented widely in US media. Now that the US has a president which pales the center-right parties in europe, it's all forgotten. So, really short-term memory in the american voters minds are on your side.

A few hundred million USD makes for some snazzy commercials - so maybe we'll se something that'll top the Superbowl yet ...
I'd personally like to encourage Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeldt into wearing hot latex-dresses and showing that there was nothing unusual going on in Abu Ghraib. Perhaps bearing a star-burst pierced nipple or something - to show they are good sports.

When http://www.tradesports.com/ was running the Saddam-in-power-june-2003 bets/futures I was following odds - but I was wrong in thinking that the US wouldn't go to war without proper evidence, and breaking international law ... So I stopped following the "odds".

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from Error 404:
There are laws about truth in advertising. Why not truth in politicizing? (I know...far too much to hope for).

Indeed - in fact, if there actually was truth in politics there could be no politics as we know it

Peace

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Error 404:

They need someone to tell them how and what to think, and most significantly they need someone to tell them who to blame for whatever is wrong with their lives....which is exactly what the far right plays on. I know you know that Darkhorse. The far right is the politics of blame.

Oh greeeaat point, RS, the left has never blamed anyone, oh no! (Champions of personal responsibility that crowd!)

Ah, why do I even bother; I sometimes forget I'm responding to a guy whose logical faculty cannot accept that someone who agrees with liberal positions because they are "so much easier" to agree with is, by definition, a liberal (otherwise what the fuck is a liberal?)

 

[Error 404]

Quote from spect8or:

what the fuck is a liberal?

Well my rabid sabre toothed little friend, that is an interesting question.

If you look at my posts, when referring to people as being "liberals" or "conservatives" you will see that I always put quotation marks around those words, because they don't really mean to me what todays "conservatives" have decreed them to mean. ("The L Word" and such nonsense).

You call me a "liberal". Which goes to prove my point. I don't call myself a "liberal" or a "conservative". I think anyone who likes to be labeled as one or the other is just a fool. If pressed (as I am here) to define these terms, than to me, "conservatives" are just less tolerant (like you) of those with whom they disagree, and "liberals" are usually too indulgent of those they shouldn't waste their time listening to. But that's just my take on it. On the whole, I'd rather not use either word. To me, they diminish anyone.

I will quote Chris Rock on the issue. I agree with his thinking entirely:

"The whole country's got a fucked up mentality. We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are fucking idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots.

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I'm a conservative! I'm a liberal! I'm a conservative! It's bullshit!

Be a fucking person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion.

No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I'm conservative about, I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime - I'm conservative. Prostitution - I'm liberal".

Now in reality, "liberalism" allows Chris Rock to say these words without being arrested for vulgar language like Lenny Bruce was.

I might add that Lenny Bruce and Chris Rock both found that the use of foul language adds impact and entertainment to their acts. I am sure if you had a conversation with Chris Rock when he is not on stage he would not use a small fraction of the four letter words he uses in his act. Lenny Bruce used the same kind of language when it really was shocking (and that's why he spent so much time with legal problems. Including prison. Just for cursing!). But times change (thanks to "liberals" I suppose).

So "liberal" judges decided that Bruce, and those who followed had the right to use any kind of language they wanted. Within reason. When and if you grow up, you may realize that there are inappropriate times and places for foul language. If you ever have children, my guess is you wouldn't want them to have certain words in their vocabularies as toddlers. Of course I could be completely wrong about that...and not surprised at all.

So you can thank the "liberals" for your right to use your great ability to express yourself the way you do. Using "fuck" or some variation of the word in virtually every sentence you type. So, I suppose whatever you claim your politics to be, in truth, what seems to be most important to you....to be foul mouthed and abrasive....you can thank the "liberal" lawmakers for allowing you that freedom. It wasn't that way in Lenny Bruce's day. And if John Ashcroft & Co. have their way, things will revert to the way they were in the bad old days.

As for a more literal definition of what a "liberal" is....here ya go....certainly not anything bad IMO. Clearly not descriptive of you though....so don't let anyone call YOU a "liberal". It is NOT what YOU are, and I am sure that you would be offended being called anything that meant the following:

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties; showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of opponent's opinions

So, as you can see, to you being called a "liberal" would indeed be an insult. To me, I don't mind at all. I see no shame at all in this.

Baron is probably the greatest example of those on ET of what a "liberal" is. Look at what he puts up with here. He may have voted for Pat Buchanan in the last election for all I know. Maybe he has David Duke posters on his office walls. I don't know what his politics are. But as a person in general? I gotta go with "liberal".

Peace,
RS

 

[Pabst]

Thanks RS for the lesson in poli-sci semantics. I thought it was because of liberals that I can't lawfully exorcise my 2nd amendment rights by keeping arms around the house. And it's liberals that enslave me to the State by threatening me with prison if I don't hand over half my wages. And it's liberals who started WWl, WWll, Korea and Viet Nam. And I was wrong thinking it was liberals who force me to pay a shit load in property taxes so that someone else's kids can go to school and be taught by a 80k a year teacher on my dime.

 

[Turok]

My Goodness. Was that the perfect post or what. Nice work RS.

JB

Quote from Error 404:

Well my rabid sabre toothed little friend, that is an interesting question.

If you look at my posts, when referring to people as being "liberals" or "conservatives" you will see that I always put quotation marks around those words, because they don't really mean to me what todays "conservatives" have decreed them to mean. ("The L Word" and such nonsense).

You call me a "liberal". Which goes to prove my point. I don't call myself a "liberal" or a "conservative". I think anyone who likes to be labeled as one or the other is just a fool. If pressed (as I am here) to define these terms, than to me, "conservatives" are just less tolerant (like you) of those with whom they disagree, and "liberals" are usually too indulgent of those they shouldn't waste their time listening to. But that's just my take on it. On the whole, I'd rather not use either word. To me, they diminish anyone.

I will quote Chris Rock on the issue. I agree with his thinking entirely:

"The whole country's got a fucked up mentality. We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are fucking idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots.

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I'm a conservative! I'm a liberal! I'm a conservative! It's bullshit!

Be a fucking person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion.

No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I'm conservative about, I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime - I'm conservative. Prostitution - I'm liberal".

Now in reality, "liberalism" allows Chris Rock to say these words without being arrested for vulgar language like Lenny Bruce was.

I might add that Lenny Bruce and Chris Rock both found that the use of foul language adds impact and entertainment to their acts. I am sure if you had a conversation with Chris Rock when he is not on stage he would not use a small fraction of the four letter words he uses in his act. Lenny Bruce used the same kind of language when it really was shocking (and that's why he spent so much time with legal problems. Including prison. Just for cursing!). But times change (thanks to "liberals" I suppose).

So "liberal" judges decided that Bruce, and those who followed had the right to use any kind of language they wanted. Within reason. When and if you grow up, you may realize that there are inappropriate times and places for foul language. If you ever have children, my guess is you wouldn't want them to have certain words in their vocabularies as toddlers. Of course I could be completely wrong about that...and not surprised at all.

So you can thank the "liberals" for your right to use your great ability to express yourself the way you do. Using "fuck" or some variation of the word in virtually every sentence you type. So, I suppose whatever you claim your politics to be, in truth, what seems to be most important to you....to be foul mouthed and abrasive....you can thank the "liberal" lawmakers for allowing you that freedom. It wasn't that way in Lenny Bruce's day. And if John Ashcroft & Co. have their way, things will revert to the way they were in the bad old days.

As for a more literal definition of what a "liberal" is....here ya go....certainly not anything bad IMO. Clearly not descriptive of you though....so don't let anyone call YOU a "liberal". It is NOT what YOU are, and I am sure that you would be offended being called anything that meant the following:

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties; showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of opponent's opinions

So, as you can see, to you being called a "liberal" would indeed be an insult. To me, I don't mind at all. I see no shame at all in this.

Baron is probably the greatest example of those on ET of what a "liberal" is. Look at what he puts up with here. He may have voted for Pat Buchanan in the last election for all I know. Maybe he has David Duke posters on his office walls. I don't know what his politics are. But as a person in general? I gotta go with "liberal".

Peace,
RS

 

[Turok]

RS:
>The far right is the politics of blame.

And Pabst responds soon enough...

Quote from Pabst:

Thanks RS for the lesson in poli-sci semantics. I thought it was because of liberals that I can't lawfully exorcise my 2nd amendment rights by keeping arms around the house. And it's liberals that enslave me to the State by threatening me with prison if I don't hand over half my wages. And it's liberals who started WWl, WWll, Korea and Viet Nam. And I was wrong thinking it was liberals who force me to pay a shit load in property taxes so that someone else's kids can go to school and be taught by a 80k a year teacher on my dime.

Nuff said.

JB

 

[Error 404]

Quote from Pabst:

Thanks RS for the lesson in poli-sci semantics. (etc).

Yeah Pabst...like I said, the "conservatives" have used the word "liberal" to define all that they don't like.

You may not think so, but I don't like a lot of the same stuff as you. But most of all, I just don't buy the "liberal"/"conservative" labels.

For the reasons I said. And your post seems to reinforce what I said. What is a person who believes in smaller government, but not in the right of any citizen to own a bazooka? Can one be in favor of the death penalty and also in favor of the legalization of drugs? I mean to me, like Chris Rock said...you have to take each issue as separate. The Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads" are comical to me.

Did you or did you NOT read where I said I may vote for Bush in the next election? I am capable of that. You, on the other hand, would probably rather eat broken glass than vote for Kerry.

You (and I don't mean you specifically ...I mean the self proclaimed "conservatives") ALL HATE BILL CLINTON. Hell, the guy cheated on his wife!!! But "you" hate her even more than him. I mean it's just all so predictable. All so "party- line black and white". So no, I would NEVER want to be called a "conservative" with the connotation it has today. I don't like being called a "liberal" either. I don't fit into that mold either. I don't WANT to fit into any mold.

And that seems to be a big thing for today's "conservatives"...they actually seem to ENJOY being products of a single mold. ...DITTOHEADS!

Pabst...tell me....do you like John Ashcroft?
Do you like any Democrats at all?
Do you ever find yourself changing your mind about issues as facts unfold?

Well, I have to watch "24" now..suggest you do the same. Season finale...But I am anxiously looking forward to reading your response. And if I'm REALLY lucky, I will get some pure venom from Spec8or.. LOL

Peace Pabst....you are a good guy...just loosen up a bit. OK?

RS